Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Lu

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being quoted in various places is is not notability . Being included in 100.... is not notability . The Forbes item is an interview where she says whatever she pleases, to promote her enterprises. That's the purpose of this WP article also--but here, it's a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (full disclosure: I vaguely know Christine from Twitter/Facebook/blogs and have occasionally interacted with her, albeit probably not in ~10 years AFAIK). The sources do not sustain notability. They either quote her about something else, are Forbes.com (not independent RS), are interviews (and thus not independent, since she is the source) or are otherwise not significant coverage in a independent RS (i.e., Linkedin, company websites). Inclusion in a HuffPost listicle is not WP:SIGCOV since it doesn't tell you anything about her, and anyway Huffington Post Contributor articles (which this appears to be) are not an RS. Finally there's a very obvious WP:PROMO issue with this page and its creator has been blocked as a sock-puppet. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very promotional article, and, per FOARP, no significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Tosi | ^t/_c 16:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That is the biggest problem with Forbes, while they are reputable... they aren’t known for fact checking their claims at all. Being on their list is not enough for notability by itself. Trillfendi (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nomination,and Per FOARP (talk,obviously WP:PROMO.--SalmanZ (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.